The goal of the present study was to shed light on the practical aspects of social justice advocacy by focusing on the narratives of licensed counseling psychologists who were trained in social justice-oriented doctoral programs. In an attempt to unveil the factors that are linked to counseling psychologists’ involvement in advocacy roles, I interviewed 11 clinicians across the U.S. In this chapter, I discuss the main themes that emerged from the narratives of the participants in relation to the counseling psychology literature on social justice advocacy. Next, I point out the limitations of this study. Lastly, I reflect on the implications of the study findings for critical psychology theory
(Prilleltensky, 1997, 1999) as well as counseling psychology practice, training, and research.
Narrative Analysis of the Study Findings
Participants’ narratives can be clustered chronologically within three overarching themes: personal and training history, manifestations of social justice advocacy in current practice, and future advocacy prospects.
Personal and Training History. An analysis of the participants’ narratives suggests that their interest in a social justice perspective had sparked before they attended their doctoral programs. Most of the participants in the present study had multiple
marginalized identities. These participants described living through social injustice based on the intersection of their identities, such as being a woman and ethnic minority or being a man of color and immigrant. Having firsthand exposure to systemic barriers, a number of participants shared their awareness of the systemic problems prior to their doctoral training. Other participants with more privileged identities had exposures to injustice in
which they learned about experiences of those who have been the target of oppression, discrimination, and different forms of inequality. In line with the previous research (Beer et al., 2012; Caldwell & Vera, 2010; L. Smith & Lau, 2013; Watts, Williams, & Jagers, 2003), such exposures were critical in facilitating participants’ social justice orientation by increasing their awareness of social injustice.
The present study’s findings differed from previous research (e.g., Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005) in that political views were not identified as significant factors contributing to the participants’ development of a social justice orientation.
Correspondingly, while various researchers have emphasized spirituality as a significant predictor of social justice commitment (Arredondo & Perez, 2003; Beer et al., 2012; Caldwell & Vera, 2010; Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011), participants did not discuss their spiritual values with regard to their social justice orientation. Nonetheless, it is important to note that interview questions in this study did not explicitly ask how critical incidents in participants’ lives have shaped their social justice orientation. Instead, participants were asked to reflect on their overall personal and professional experiences as the factors that led to pursuing a doctoral degree from a social justice-oriented psychology program.
Regardless of participants’ social identities and experiences of privilege and oppression, critical role models (e.g., family members, teachers, and mentors) were a source of inspiration and provided influential examples of integrating social justice- focused values into one’s life. Akin to their earlier exposures to societal injustice, participants interacted with these individuals before they entered the doctoral programs. In some cases, at a very young age, participants gained their values around social justice
by observing these models’ attitudes and actions around sociopolitical issues such as promoting human rights and access to health and education. This result supports the points of several scholars (e.g., Caldwell & Vera, 2010; Griffith, 2003; Watts et al., 2003) related to the necessity of instilling social justice values at early stages of individuals’ development. Therefore, both exposure to injustice and role models that uphold social justice values could be instrumental in terms of fostering counseling psychologists’ social justice orientation.
In relation to participants’ training history, this study’s finding that participants entered their programs with some level of commitment to social justice brings up a question about whether participants chose to pursue their education in a social justice- oriented psychology program based on this interest. Despite their values around promoting positive social change, not all of the participants prioritized their program’s social justice emphasis when searching the doctoral programs. However, entering their doctoral programs with some awareness of systemic problems based on their life
incidents, participants appreciated learning opportunities that bolstered their commitment to social justice through their doctoral trainings. Hence, in agreement with Beer and colleagues’ (2012) findings, rather than being the primary factor that shaped participants’ commitment to social justice, doctoral programs appeared to serve as an additional support for their development as social justice-oriented psychologists.
Counseling psychology programs supported participants’ development as social justice-oriented psychologists in various ways, including course curricula, clinical practice, supervision, outreach, and research. Instead of teaching social justice issues explicitly within a specific course, most of the participants’ training programs integrated
a social justice agenda into the learning activities in several courses (e.g., multicultural counseling/working with diverse populations and psychotherapy models). In conjunction with the literature on social justice training in counseling psychology, participants
highlighted the role of learning about the links between sociopolitical/systemic issues and mental health through their course readings (Arredondo & Perez; 2003; Burnes & Singh, 2010; Pieterse et al., 2009; Watts, 2004).
Study participants also valued learning activities that enriched their awareness of contextual problems through self-examination of their identities, values, biases, and privileges. In this sense, participants’ narratives support the previous literature’s emphasis on using reflective activities (e.g., journal writing and group discussions) to increase consciousness around how one’s multiple identities affect their work with oppressed populations (Arredondo & Arciniega, 2001; Burnes & Singh, 2010; Burnett, et al., 2004; Collins et al., 2010; Daniel et al., 2004; Goodman et al., in press; Goodman, Liang, Weintraub, Helms, & Latta, 2004). For example, several participants discussed being transformed by their internal reflections on their oppressed and privileged identities in relation to their social justice work. Providing plentiful opportunities to understand and use one’s emotional reactions, these learning activities seemed to enhance participants’ understanding of the impact of social injustice on individuals’ and communities’ well- being. Furthermore, conforming the research on integrating difficult dialogues into social justice training (e.g., Toporek &Worthington, 2014), participants appreciated having training opportunities to learn how to have conversations around sociopolitical issues with their clients, peers, and co-workers.
As these mostly within-class training experiences were important components of participants’ training history, experiential or hands-on learning experiences that allowed them to actively engage in social justice work through immersion to underserved
communities were invaluable. Findings of the present study echo the scholarly
discussions on the value of non-traditional training experiences, such as participating in community-based interventions, in counseling psychology trainees’ development as social change agents (S. Ali et al., 2008; Burnes & Singh, 2010; Burnett et al., 2005; Caldwell & Vera, 2010; Constantine et al., 2007; Goodman et al., 2004, in press; Ivey & Collins, 2003; Koch et al., 2014; Lewis, 2010; Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011; O’Brien et al., 2006; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 1994; Talleyrand et al., 2006; Vera & Speight, 2003). Specifically, a number of participants reported providing non-traditional psychological services from multicultural counseling and feminist approaches. This was crucial in training as it allowed participants to be more flexible in terms of expanding their roles as mental health care providers. Moreover, participants noted that these learning activities fostered their understanding of the sociopolitical barriers that impair mental health and further marginalize these populations.
Becoming more aware of the realities of underserved populations, such as the homeless or refugees, through community-based or systemic projects (e.g., collaborations with community agencies) also helped participants partake in interventions that addressed the needs of marginalized populations beyond individual-level work. Participants who had these learning opportunities in their doctoral programs appreciated the fact that their immersion and in-service learning experiences contributed to their perspectives about psychologists’ roles and responsibilities in a way that they could not gain through
traditional learning activities (e.g., reading literature on social justice and mental health). Therefore, participants shared the transformative nature of these experiences as they had a stronger influence on participants’ development as social change agents compared to other learning activities.
Participants’ narratives were also congruent with previous studies’ attention to the roles of the counseling psychology faculty members’ as facilitators of trainees’
engagement in social justice work (Burnes & Singh, 2010; Goodman et al., 2004; Koch et al., 2014; Motulsky, Gere, Saleem, & Trantham, 2014). These faculty members modeled social justice advocacy through their research projects in their local communities as well as advocacy within their academic programs (i.e., advocating for disadvantaged students). In other words, many faculty members in graduate programs “walked the walk” by engaging in social justice advocacy on multiple levels. Working with these faculty members throughout their training, all of the participants described research experiences that focused on social justice issues (e.g., intersections of gender, race, social class, and mental health).
While participants recognized the benefits of these nourishing training
experiences in their doctoral programs that helped them infuse a social justice perspective to their work, their exposure to advocacy training varied considerably. In line with the arguments of numerous scholars in the field (e.g., Collins, Arthur, & Brown, 2013; Singh et al., 2010; Speight & Vera, 2008; Toporek et al., 2006), a number of participants
criticized their training programs for not providing organized and structured didactic experiences, practice, supervision, and guidance that would promote their engagement in advocacy. In particular, participants lamented on their lack of formal training in practical
aspects of social justice work such as advocacy. Several participants’ dissatisfaction of their social justice training supported the current literature on counseling psychology programs’ relatively weaker focus on social justice work as opposed to multicultural counseling (Malott, 2010; Piterse et al., 2009; Priester, Jones, Jackson-Bailey, Jana- Masri, Jordan, & Metz, 2008). This finding indicates that counseling psychology
programs, despite promoting a social justice agenda, may not provide a formal advocacy training which suggests some limitations in social justice-oriented training. More
importantly, a few participants pointed out a problem regarding the fact that faculty members in their programs did not equally value a social justice perspective which echo a number of scholars’ concerns about engaging faculty members in advocacy-oriented research and teaching (Koch et al., 2014; Motulsky et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2010; Speight & Vera, 2008).
Similar to their experiences in doctoral programs, participants reported
inconsistent exposure to social justice advocacy training in their clinical training settings such as their practicum and internship sites. Although participants from several doctoral programs shared prominent practicum experiences through their doctoral programs’ connections with local community agencies and ongoing research projects, in most of these programs, social justice advocacy experiences were “optional” rather than a requirement which did not provide equal learning opportunities for trainees regarding social justice work. As a result, those participants, who were not able to receive advocacy training through their doctoral programs, had to seek out opportunities in other academic programs or clinical training sites to learn ways to engage in advocacy. In short,
research on counseling psychology trainees’ advocacy training (Beer et al., 2012; Collins et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2010), and suggest trainees’ strong desire to learn about
advocacy work, which was inconsistently integrated into the programs’ training. Manifestations of Social Justice Advocacy in Current Practice. The second theme emerged based on the analysis of the participants’ narratives revealed creative and promising ways of engaging in advocacy in psychological practice. Committed to
reaching out to those who are underserved and oppressed, participants of this study gave rich examples for advocacy on both individual and organizational levels. Compatible with the relevant literature (Kuo & Arcuri, 2014; Lewis et al., 2002; Palmer et al., 1998; Ratts, 2009; Toporek et al., 2009), participants’ examples for their engagement in advocacy in the therapy room include recognition of the impacts of cultural,
sociopolitical, and economic factors on mental health; empowering clients by sharing this conceptualization with them and helping clients advocate for themselves; integrating a social justice perspective into the therapeutic alliance through relationship building and collaboration from an egalitarian stance; and addressing power dynamics and contextual issues within psychotherapy.
Participants also discussed engaging in advocacy outside the therapy room. These efforts to integrate advocacy into clinical practice were in agreement with the need for taking non-traditional roles as psychologists which have been underscored by the leaders of social justice movement in counseling psychology (e.g., Blustein et al., 2005; Fouad et al., 2006; Goodman et al., 2004; Helms, 2003; Ivey & Collins, 2003; Lewis et al., 2002; Palmer & Parish, 2008; Ratts et al., 2010; Vera & Speight, 2003; Toporek et al., 2009). In particular, participants considered their clients’ basic needs (e.g., housing, legal
problems, and medical/ psychological treatment) when coordinating services for them. They valued collaborating with other professionals and organizations that can provide these resources for their clients. As participants worked in complex mental health care systems, such as medical settings and community mental health centers, they perceived assisting clients navigate multiple systems, including health care, academic, and legal systems, by connecting them with resources as an essential way of engaging in advocacy. Consistent with Lewis and colleagues’ (2002) description of advocacy competencies, participants’ actions encompassed both acting with and acting on behalf of their clients.
As participants in this study valued advocacy, many of them did not hesitate to do the extra work that was far beyond the traditional psychotherapeutic roles (Burnes & Singh, 2010; Goodman et al., 2004, 2013; in press; Green, McCollum, & Hays, 2008; Ratts, 2009, 2011; Vera & Speight, 2003; Weintraub & Goodman, 2010) which are limited to 50-minute face-to-face meeting in a therapy room. Some of the valuable exemplars for advocacy outside the therapy room include having time-consuming phone or written contacts with health insurance companies to help clients access treatment services; going to legal trials with clients who are asylum seekers; providing home-based psychotherapy for clients from low-income backgrounds without getting reimbursement for transportation; and providing pro bono services.
In addition to advocacy on an individual level, participants’ stories illustrated diverse ways of engagement in advocacy on an organizational level that embody advocacy work both within the organization and beyond. Regardless of their clinical settings, participants advocated for culturally-responsive practices and policies in their organizations. They made significant attempts to increase organizational awareness
around the relationship between mental health and contextual barriers. Some participants carried this role on to levels transcending advocacy for clients. For example, along with integrating a social justice perspective into their teaching and supervision, participants discussed their support for recruitment of clinicians of color and advocating for ethnic minority trainees and staff members who had less power than they did within the organization.
Beyond their organizations, participants used opportunities to provide education, consultation, and supervision on multicultural and social justice issues for local and national organizations. Furthermore, some participants valued giving back to their communities by providing psychoeducation through their cultural and religious institutions. Therefore, aligned with the scholarly emphasis on creating organizational change as psychologists (APA, 2003; Chang, Hays, & Milliken, 2009; Fouad et al. 2006; Goodman et al, 2004; Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Lewis, 2010; Lewis et al., 2002; Prilleltensky, 1997, 1999; Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky, 2003; Speight & Vera, 2008; Toporek et al., 2009; Vera & Speight, 2003), participants tried to educate and challenge the institutions that maintain and contribute to the power inequalities, marginalization, and oppression. At times, this required them to put ongoing efforts to engage their co- workers in dialogues around the power dynamics and the systemic issues in their organizations.
One of the valuable contributions of this study was illuminating some of the pragmatic aspects of social justice advocacy. In this respect, several factors seemed to affect participants’ engagement in aforementioned advocacy roles. As discussed in the literature extensively (e.g., Blustein, Elman, & Gerstein, 2002; as cited in Toporek &
Williams, 2006, p. 18; Goodman et al., 2004; Helms, 2003; Ivey & Collins, 2003; Kennedy, 2013; Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Speight & Vera, 2004, 2008; Toporek & Vaughn, 2010), supports and barriers to engagement in social justice work had critical roles in defining how participants could advance their advocacy roles. Institutional support for social justice-focused practice, one’s own power and autonomy as a licensed clinician, working with like-minded professionals and professional networks were some of the prominent catalyzers of participants’ social justice work, including advocacy. For instance, participants who worked for organizations that support advocacy appreciated the flexibility they had as clinicians. Additionally, for many participants, staying connected to professionals with similar social justice values was important.
Not surprisingly, lack of institutional support for advocacy came up as the most critical factor that impeded participants’ further investment in advocacy in their practice. Supporting several authors’ (e.g., Fox, 2003; Goodman et al., 2004; Helms, 2003; Ivey & Collins, 2003) contemplations on the barriers to social justice work within professional psychology more than a decade ago, participants expressed numerous institutional challenges they faced when trying to integrate advocacy into their professional practices. Some of the examples participants shared pertain to working in settings with clinical approaches, policies, and practices that are predominantly individualistic, over-
pathologizing, hierarchical, and culturally-insensitive. More strikingly, while trying to advocate for those who are oppressed by systemic inequalities, including psychological practices that uphold the social status quo (Prilleltensky, 1999), participants themselves were not immune to injustice, as they also felt marginalized and dominated at times by those institutional structures.
Notably, participants in this study described both emotional and professional challenges with regard to advocating for culturally-informed and social justice-focused policies and practices based on their identities such as being women, people of color, or immigrants as they were questioned and confronted by those professionals who
discredited participants’ social justice perspectives. Given their training that highlighted promoting social justice through psychological practice, some participants were shocked and confused due to the institutional barriers they encountered during their post-
graduation professional experiences. Despite their relatively powerful and privileged status as licensed clinicians, participants struggled with finding ways to overcome these barriers.
While all of the participants were motivated to engage in community-level and systemic interventions, resonating with the practical issues noted in the literature (Dale, 2008; Goodman et al., 2004; Helms, 2003; Ivey & Collins, 2003; Koch et al., 2014; Palmer & Parish, 2008; Speight & Vera, 2008), participants had difficulty involving in these interventions because advocacy was not included within the scope of their work. Thus, they had to focus on advocacy-related activities that mostly consisted of individual- and organizational-level work without engaging in sociopolitical action that would target the roots of the systemic problems.
These real challenges that participants’ narratives reflect are supportive of Helms’s (2003) and Speight and Vera’s (2008) statements regarding the fact that counseling psychologists also work within a mental health care system that does not necessarily share the same values; in fact, at times, these systems force them to meet certain demands that create barriers regarding working beyond individual- and
organizational- level advocacy. Consequently, the participants who tried to promote social justice-informed practices in their clinical settings were seen as “stepping out” of their professional roles as psychologists. One participant shared the reactions he received